@@muppetpaster yes like the dude/broad said they subtract the higher harmonics whats super intesrsting though is when you do that to the nth degree you end up with a sine wave
Good effort mate. There are quite a few mistakes in here (dx and 106 were not 70s synths, it's 'mowg', thriller was played on a 2600, etc etc) but hey, you had the balls to put something excellent out there and I didn't, so go you!!
At 5:50 you show Anthony Marinelli playing the bass for Thriller. BUT in this video he is showing how he created the synth bass for Thriller using his Arp 2600, which is the one on the record. He then goes on to demonstrate how it can be done with his Moog, but it is not the same and not on Thriller.
Jeez people need to chill. Okay there might be a few inaccuracies, which I didn’t know until reading the comments, but this was still a very well produced video and I still learnt a lot of things from it and enjoyed watching!
You completely missed the Hammond Novachord from the 1930's. Not to mention that the first tonewheel Hammonds used additive sine waves to produce complex tones 9 layers deep. Moog is pronounced: Moe - g.
He missed a lot, and there were some errors: - nothing about the RCA mk2, which was the most advanced system until the late 1960s. - categorizing the Theremin as 'a synthesizer', when it is not. Still worth a mention, though. A viable definition could have focused the topic better, imho. "Generates tones" doesn't say much for clarifying what synths are, or what they can do differently from anything else. - no mention of Don Buchla or Serge Tcherepnin. The USA has at least **two** coasts as far as synths are concerned :) - EMS, Korg and Oberheim do not exist in this timeline, and Roland was only ever good at making a DCO poly or two. - people like Raymond Scott and Harold Bode , who were huge influences on Bob Moog. - the Fairlight and samplers don't belong in a 20 minute histiory of synthesizers. A Synclavier WOULD have belonged here and served well as a worthy bridge - being an FM synth first, but whoopsy. - No mention of RMI -> PPG -> ProphetVS -> Korg -> Waldorf etc ....I guess that wavetable hardware synths never existed in this timeline, either. This isn't "THE" history, and it's hardly "A" comprehensive history. The topic is too vast to squeeze into under 20 minutes without ignoring or minimizing some key players. It's a young guy's perspective of how some of his favorite music was made on certain instruments. I'm sure he'll look back and cringe if he hasn't already. And it's okay, nobody's going to arrest him for it , it's all good lol.
Given the title, one might expect it to be comprehensive, but given the video length, it's wasn't likely. One amazing source is "120 Years of Electronic Music : The history of electronic musical instruments from 1800 to 2019", though there are more than a few exceptions to their title (1748: Denis D’Or). It would be interesting to hear a lot of these, just to get an better auditory understanding of how uncommon musical instruments have progressed since that time.
I remember trying to explain Synthesizers to my Father. He wasn't that crazy about adding various sounds to enhance our Bands sound. I told we can get any sound from Violins to sirens. The second I said sirens he flat out said no. It wasn't until I bought a Yamaha CS-80 as shown @ 6:36 did he realize what a benefit it was to Gospel Quartet music. Later he purchased a Roland JUNO 106 and our sound really advanced. We recorded three Albums with it.
I have the honour and delight of being one member of a museum team, building a functional replica of what is acknowledged to be the world's first *true* synthesizer. "True" in the sense that it uses voltage control of multiple parameters, most of which can be utilized in real time. The various early electronic instruments profiled in the video were undoubtedly clever and innovative, but they yielded a fixed timbre, that could not be modified in real time. The "electronic sackbut" is distinguished by implementing real-time voltage control over multiple parameters; something we became accustomed to 20 years later. It was invented/designed and built by the late Hugh LeCaine, a physicist, working at/for the National Research Council of Canada, between 1945-48. The Canadian Museum of Science & Technology has the sackbut on display behind glass, as well as some 21 more of his synthesizer developments over the subsequent 25 years, 2 more of which are also on display, the rest being in storage. The sackbut was remarkable for its time. A monophonic instrument, the user played the keyboard with their right hand, and could work several forms of modulation, simultaneously, with their left hand, using clever thumb, index finger, and pinky finger controls. Additional fixed controls could adjust attack time, glide/portamento and keyboard sensitivity. Most striking was that the keyboard had a form of horizontal and vertical aftertouch. Not velocity-sensitive, the user could increase the volume of a note by pressing harder on a depressed key. The horizontal/lateral sensitivity of the keyboard was for vibrato control. If you look for images on-line you'll see that the keyboard keys were bevelled at the side. This was so that the player could more easily get their finger at the side of the key and wiggle it to achieve a form of vibrato. We wouldn't see this sort of post-keypress control in commercial devices until the last 5 years or so. Being from the late 1940s, the sackbut was tube-based, requiring a fairly substantial supply voltage. Naturally, relying on tubes meant there would be various stability issues as things warmed up. As such, it is replete with trimming/adjustment pots hither and yon to coax it into working properly. Most definitely NOT a concert instrument! As a device he cobbled together with spare parts in his spare time, and with a largely wooden structure, it is no longer in playable condition. The keyboard has warped over the past 70+ years. Quite frankly, an electrical hazard at this point. Some detective work and reverse engineering had been done at a lab in Calgary, Alberta, before returning it to the museum, although there seem to be a few mysteries remaining, that we haven't quite figured out yet. The team received permission from the conservationist to take it out of the glass display case the other day and poke around inside (with rubber gloves, of course). There is a rack-and-pinion system that the player could operate with a foot-treadle to actuate a spring reverb system. One of the team members is the developer of the Haken Audio Eagenmatrix, used as the heart of the recent Osmose Expressive E synth. He told me that, as near as they can figure out, LeCaine intended for the foot-controlled reverb to be employed like a sustain control to lengthen the decay of notes. Makes sense given that there is no electronic control of decay, only attack. In a sense, the reverb was to be used somewhat like the sustain pedal on a grand piano. LeCaine left many notes, which are stored in the National LIbrary and Archives, however no complete circuit diagram of the sackbut itself, only a circuit diagram which is a composite of many features of the sackbut but combined with things he changed in subsequent iterations. There are audio recordings of the unit in action, and a number of still photos, but no filmed recordings that would allow us to see how he was making the sounds, using the various controls. The mission and mandate of the team is to produce a working functional replica of the original, that musicians could book time with and relive the experience of synthesis in the immediate post-war years. We have adhered to the physical layout and structure of the original, and many aspects of its design, but have substituted some more current technology in place of the tube electronics, like the Eaganmarix digital sound engine in place of tube oscillator and filters. The Eaganmatrix is MPE-compatible, such that the various controls can be read by Arduinos, transformed into MIDI code and sent to the Eaganmatrix. It's been a fascinating journey so far. Looking forward to the finish line. You can find many YOutube videos and documents about it on-line.
While the Yamaha DX7 does use sinewaves to create some pretty complex sounds, it's a Digital FM Synthesizer that was originally released in 1987, the Synthesizers of the 70's were mostly analog monophonic instruments (there was at least one Digital Synthesizer released in the 70's called the Fairlight CMI), they usually had one or more analog VCOs or Voltage Controlled Oscillators that generated a basic Sawtooth waveform and then used waveshaper circuits to generate Triangle, Sine, and Square waveforms.
Well done Ben and thanks. As others have said, there may have been one or two inaccuracies but it's a great overview and one I'll show my kids. I've been into synths since the 80s and now mostly muck around with Softube Modular and various plugin emulations, like the Model 40 and Model 80. Take care and good luck with your studies. Cheers from Sydney - Dave
And we have of course the new trend of VST inspired synthesizers like the Waldorf Iridium, the flagship synth with this amazing GUI, easy to understand modulation matrix and limited menu diving. A lot of work went in your short documentary.
I had no idea that these instruments had roots going that far back. We have come very far in synth technology too. I remember seeing on MTV videos where keyboardists would have a rack of 2 synths here and maybe another rack of 3 there. When I saw Genesis in 1992 Tony Banks used 4 synths on stage and they were big ones - Emulator II+, Yamaha DX-9, two other types. By the time I saw A Flock of Seagulls at a casino during the 2010's, Mike Score played ALL the notes, incl. the Arabianesque melody - everything on a small Roland synth unit. Just that and that alone. After the show, he dismounted the thing off its foldable rack, put all that gear in a zip bag and it was ready to go. Radically different than what you would've seen in 1983. BTW, 'Moog' is pronounced 'Mogue' (rhymes with 'vogue'). I saw the movie 'MOOG' online and Robert Moog said so himself. Stevie Wonder and others mispronounced it. Great job, Ben. Hope you got a good grade for this project. 👏
Well done, Ben. Nicely put together but not always entirely accurate. Nevertheless, a very enjoyable video. I hope you get a good grade for it (was it an EPQ project?).
Nice coverage, but I wouldn't call it "The" history of synthesizers. For one thing, ARP synths are scarcely discussed at all, and they were key in the development of music that used synthesizers. Tony Banks of Genesis used a Pro Soloist to great effect on Selling England by the Pound and The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway. Joe Zawinul of Weather Report did amazing work with two 2600s. George Duke had an Odyssey working with Frank Zappa.
Good video. Of course it is still a small slice of synthesizer history. I have more than 10 hardware synths including an OB--X8 that I bought because I respected the people that built it. These days I use PluginGuru Unifiy to manage the huge number of VST synths in my computer. I recall memories of playing on a Buchla synth many years back at UCSD with Ampex tape recorders. Yes, I have a real Roland VP-330. I like string machines.. My only other old Roland is a JP-8000 and RS-505
The first synth that would be recognizable as a modern synth would be the sackbut, invented in Ottawa Ontario. Moog came a decade later. Hugh Le Caine was a researcher for the NRC, was not at all interested in marketing, so the sackbut sits in the NRC museum, shame really.
Anthony Marinelli played the original Thriller bass line on this 2600 and not on his Model D. He is showing in the clip that you can get similar results with the Model D though.
Nice evolution of synths. I like the analog stuff as the later digital ones. The classics (DX7,D50,M1) never really impressed me ergonomically nor their presets. Got a KingKorg, Jupiter 50 (best preset synth I ever owned) and a Subsequent 37. This is my trinity, virtual analog, Roland library (Juno, Jupiters 1080 etc) and the analog beast by Bob. Mind that the virtual analog Korg emulates classic filters (Moog,Oberheim,P5,MS20 etc) and can do a 3 osc split (two MiniMoogs at your fingertips). The Moog on sample & hold is mindblowing!
Excellent work! As a synthesizer fan, it’s always nice to learn something new, and I didn’t know about anything before 1950 or so. That said, if you ever revisit this, there are two things that I thought were critical, that needed more mention. The first was, I believe that the jump from monophonic to polyphonic synthesis was a major game changer, and it wasn’t really fully mentioned. The ability to play a chord on a synthesizer was a huge shift. Second, I think you missed the boat on sampling. What you really needed to do was take that same sample of your voice, and then play a little arpeggio and a chord with your voice to more fully demonstrate the concept.
Note: The Theremin is not actually a synthesizer, it is an electronic musical instrument you play without even touching it, the reason why I say that the Theremin is not a synthesizer is because it doesn't "Synthesize" sound, the word Synthesizer comes from the word Synthesis which means "The combining of parts into a connected whole" which succinctly describes what a true Synthesizer does, it combines parts of a sound into a connected whole sound, a Theremin consists of three radio-frequency oscillators one is set to a fixed frequency and is called a reference oscillator, the other two Radio-frequency oscillators are variable in frequency and are connected to an antenna, one of the variable oscillators is mixed with the signal from the reference oscillator, the difference in frequency between the two produces a Sinewave at an audio frequency, the pitch of the audio frequency can be controlled by simply moving your hand closer to or further away from the antenna the oscillator is connected to, so a Theremin produces a musical sound in a completely different way to how a true Synthesizer does.
Both use oscillators, the theremin is a unique controller for electronic music. Filters in subtractive synthesis remove harmonics by letting the low partials to pass (low pass filter) or the high partials to pass in the high pass filter.
I met Mr. Buchla in the 80's when I was dating his oldest daughter. It was a brief encounter in his home. He said a couple of words and then left the room. He was quite mysterious.
@@franticj67it may have been the LSD 😂 Or - if like my own daughter… No way in hell she will tolerate me talking to her date, or lingering past “hello”.
Interesting attempt, lots of missing links though. Elisha Grey's musical telegraph deserved a mention, Duddell's singing arc, and there were several different telhamonium's. The Ondes Martenot, Trautonium, and more.
Great Video Ben. I think the instrument used by the beach boys was a Tannerin not a Theremin though they do sound very similar. anyhow nice video thankyou.
My 1964 high school senior physics project was a theremin I built from a box of electronic parts and instructions I bought from none other than Robert Moog. (I still have an autographed letter he wrote me). He published a newsletter called "Moog Music" pun intended, which probably led to the usual mispronunciation of his surname.
I've been fighting for many years about this. I saw a documentary that asked the man himself how Moog should be pronounced, but he admitted that it had been Anglicised to from "mogue" to moog.
The same thing happened to Nike from the US. If in the UK, you pronounce it "Naykee", you're in the minority. Most brits call it "Nayk" I've come to accept there are different ways of pronouncing things and not worth worrying about it. Different strokes...
Great video and good effort. However, you did miss out a very important piece of the jigsaw, and that is Raymond Scott and his Electronium, along with many other technological innovations and musical achievements, spanning decades. He's the man who inspired the likes of Kraftwerk, Floyd, Eno and Robert Moog. An incredible human mind and musician.
Well-put together, good length. My suggestions: Tell the camera your face is more important than your synth, and maybe don't cut some of the examples so early. YT's sound detection should only happen on longer song parts.
Just binge watched the rest of your content after it seemingly showed up in my feed - I assume via algorithm fitting my synth niche. Interesting content… If you have not come across the documentary “I dream of wires” I recommend it. And you seem to have an interest in film and music? One of your videos examines leitmotifs- I have a topic for you… “psychological programing in film scores” (maybe there’s a word for this science I’m unaware of?) As there are seemingly set patterns and use of various instruments to not just convey emotion - but to induce it. Often successful in inducing emotions where the film itself otherwise fails…. There is some black magic to be deciphered. As there are certain instrumental elements that our societies are psychologically programmed to respond to - not just in one film, but carrying over from film to film, over the course of decades (*a period of ten years).
1994 Seer Systems delivered the first pro-quality CPU-based software synthesizer to Intel-on a 486. 1995, Microsoft took it from them and put it in their system. In 1996 CTL used it to make the AWE32 into AWE64. 1997 Reality 1.0 software synth scored higher than any previous hardware in Electronic Musician. 2017 Feb, EM gives Seer Systems its first Editors’ Choice Legacy Award "for Game-Changing Influence on Synthesis."
"MOWAHGG" not "MOOOOOG" - FFS!!! This is why you only have 253 subs! Otherwise, a nice little video. But you had to be there at the time to really appreciate the advances in technology from the Theremin through to EVERYONE IN THE WORLD using a DX-7 and the awesome Jupiter 8. I loved those times, I've played rock/metal guitar since 1988 BUT I still have a master MIDI keyboard, Cubase and the plethora of VST synths that I have collected over the years, literally only to make the noises I hold dear to my heart on hearing the likes of Jarre, Vangeliis and Tangerine Dream as a kid.
really excellent video my guy, i was totally unaware of the very early synth stuff in particular, great job (by the way, its a common mistake, but Moog rhymes with rogue)
Does anyone perhaps know a synth into which I can directly enter mathematical formulas? Reaktor offers something like that but the interface is very uncomfortable. Does anyone know an alternative?
Good effort. One note. Moog is pronounced wrongly in this video. It rhymes with vogue and rogue. I learned this from his family. They are trying to get this right in the world. This is because the name is from Dutch & German origin. After all, it's simply how they are called.
Where is Ondes Martinot, ondioline?, Trautonium per se is NOT a syntheziser: It is closer to a Hammond organ so it produces a sinewave using a synchronous motor and some gears for harmonics.. but no additive synthesis. I also expected to see the Voder and Vocoder which are real synthesizers extracting harmonics contents using a nth grade comb filter, and the Mellotron which is the earliest sampler... seems this video needs significant grooming and lots of research to show the real timeline.
I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I wish technology could have been frozen in the late 70's. The innovation from the late 70's and into the 80's far outpaced the artist's creativity to use such technology. New technology would come out before the artists could even scratch the surface on the usage of the existing technology. I offer as evidence the fact that many popular songs contained factory preset patches. I talked to the guy at Emu that created the "swashbuckler" sound used in Robert Palmer's "Simply Irresistible". This sound/patch was supposed to be an EXAMPLE of what the machine was capable of, a demonstration. Instead, a song was created around it. There were a few exceptions like Howard Jones and Kate Bush, but most artists took the instrument out of the box, plugged it in, and went straight into the studio. They didn't take the time to develop custom sounds, organically from the ground up. When the Samplers took off they would digitize other songs and inject them into their music. Augh!! The intent of the engineers was that an artist could digitize an organic sound, like a stream of water, or wildlife, process it, and incorporate it into music. Kind of like the way painters would take colors from nature and use them in paintings. Sorry for the rant, but it is frustrating to see such technology not being realized to its full potential.
When synths invaded the pop music market in the 80's everyone thought that musicians were going to lose their jobs. The same thing will happen with this artificial intelligence. 
Just kinda blew by the entire virtual analog innovations of the 1990's there. The Nord Lead, JP-8000, and CS1x are on line 1. And the original CPU-based modeling like ReBirth338.
Filters don’t lower the pitch of the sound, they remove the upper harmonics or partials from the sound. The pitch remains the same.
lmao
Was going to mention this
Subtraction.....that is what filters do.
@@muppetpaster yes like the dude/broad said they subtract the higher harmonics whats super intesrsting though is when you do that to the nth degree you end up with a sine wave
Yeah but if you think DEEPLY about it, you actually end up with lower-pitch-audable-information
The instrument at 2:55 is not a Theremin. Good Vibrations uses a Tannerin, which creates a similar sound to a Theremin but uses a different technique.
1:45 "a whole decade forward"
I presume you meant "a whole century"? Because 140 years certainly seems like more than a decade to me.
I dunno man, the decade since I've had kids feels like at least 140 years...
@@StephenBrown85 Yes, same for me brother!
Good effort mate. There are quite a few mistakes in here (dx and 106 were not 70s synths, it's 'mowg', thriller was played on a 2600, etc etc) but hey, you had the balls to put something excellent out there and I didn't, so go you!!
'Mowg'? Umm... 'Mohg', I think, from all the utterances I've heard.
Like „Door”?
Like moge
@@RebeccaTurner-ny1xxBob Moog himself pronounced it Mowg with a hard O. I don't think you can get any more authoritative than that.
@@davidpetersonharvey Moog pronouned the same as 'mow' as in mow the lawn.
The instrument used in Good Vibrations was NOT a Theremin; it was a similar-sounding instrument called the Electro-Theremin.
...also known as "Tannerin". 🙂
At 5:50 you show Anthony Marinelli playing the bass for Thriller. BUT in this video he is showing how he created the synth bass for Thriller using his Arp 2600, which is the one on the record. He then goes on to demonstrate how it can be done with his Moog, but it is not the same and not on Thriller.
Great point..correct it was a 2600
MOOG sounds like Rogue. Saw Bob Moog explain how to pronounce his name.
Right, long O like rogue, vogue.
Jeez people need to chill. Okay there might be a few inaccuracies, which I didn’t know until reading the comments, but this was still a very well produced video and I still learnt a lot of things from it and enjoyed watching!
Very nice, despite the mispronunciation of Moog.
Excellent work!
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
You completely missed the Hammond Novachord from the 1930's. Not to mention that the first tonewheel Hammonds used additive sine waves to produce complex tones 9 layers deep. Moog is pronounced: Moe - g.
He missed a lot, and there were some errors:
- nothing about the RCA mk2, which was the most advanced system until the late 1960s.
- categorizing the Theremin as 'a synthesizer', when it is not. Still worth a mention, though. A viable definition could have focused the topic better, imho. "Generates tones" doesn't say much for clarifying what synths are, or what they can do differently from anything else.
- no mention of Don Buchla or Serge Tcherepnin. The USA has at least **two** coasts as far as synths are concerned :)
- EMS, Korg and Oberheim do not exist in this timeline, and Roland was only ever good at making a DCO poly or two.
- people like Raymond Scott and Harold Bode , who were huge influences on Bob Moog.
- the Fairlight and samplers don't belong in a 20 minute histiory of synthesizers. A Synclavier WOULD have belonged here and served well as a worthy bridge - being an FM synth first, but whoopsy.
- No mention of RMI -> PPG -> ProphetVS -> Korg -> Waldorf etc ....I guess that wavetable hardware synths never existed in this timeline, either.
This isn't "THE" history, and it's hardly "A" comprehensive history. The topic is too vast to squeeze into under 20 minutes without ignoring or minimizing some key players.
It's a young guy's perspective of how some of his favorite music was made on certain instruments. I'm sure he'll look back and cringe if he hasn't already.
And it's okay, nobody's going to arrest him for it , it's all good lol.
@@shaft9000 I think this is more like college presentation rather than documentary. I will give him slack
Given the title, one might expect it to be comprehensive, but given the video length, it's wasn't likely.
One amazing source is "120 Years of Electronic Music : The history of electronic musical instruments from 1800 to 2019", though there are more than a few exceptions to their title (1748: Denis D’Or). It would be interesting to hear a lot of these, just to get an better auditory understanding of how uncommon musical instruments have progressed since that time.
Nothing about Acess virus and Clavia Nords.
I remember trying to explain Synthesizers to my Father. He wasn't that crazy about adding various sounds to enhance our Bands sound. I told we can get any sound from Violins to sirens. The second I said sirens he flat out said no. It wasn't until I bought a Yamaha CS-80 as shown @ 6:36 did he realize what a benefit it was to Gospel Quartet music. Later he purchased a Roland JUNO 106 and our sound really advanced. We recorded three Albums with it.
Absolutely love this documentary. I totally subbed your channel. You rock.
Man this video was amazing
I have the honour and delight of being one member of a museum team, building a functional replica of what is acknowledged to be the world's first *true* synthesizer. "True" in the sense that it uses voltage control of multiple parameters, most of which can be utilized in real time. The various early electronic instruments profiled in the video were undoubtedly clever and innovative, but they yielded a fixed timbre, that could not be modified in real time. The "electronic sackbut" is distinguished by implementing real-time voltage control over multiple parameters; something we became accustomed to 20 years later. It was invented/designed and built by the late Hugh LeCaine, a physicist, working at/for the National Research Council of Canada, between 1945-48. The Canadian Museum of Science & Technology has the sackbut on display behind glass, as well as some 21 more of his synthesizer developments over the subsequent 25 years, 2 more of which are also on display, the rest being in storage.
The sackbut was remarkable for its time. A monophonic instrument, the user played the keyboard with their right hand, and could work several forms of modulation, simultaneously, with their left hand, using clever thumb, index finger, and pinky finger controls. Additional fixed controls could adjust attack time, glide/portamento and keyboard sensitivity. Most striking was that the keyboard had a form of horizontal and vertical aftertouch. Not velocity-sensitive, the user could increase the volume of a note by pressing harder on a depressed key. The horizontal/lateral sensitivity of the keyboard was for vibrato control. If you look for images on-line you'll see that the keyboard keys were bevelled at the side. This was so that the player could more easily get their finger at the side of the key and wiggle it to achieve a form of vibrato. We wouldn't see this sort of post-keypress control in commercial devices until the last 5 years or so.
Being from the late 1940s, the sackbut was tube-based, requiring a fairly substantial supply voltage. Naturally, relying on tubes meant there would be various stability issues as things warmed up. As such, it is replete with trimming/adjustment pots hither and yon to coax it into working properly. Most definitely NOT a concert instrument!
As a device he cobbled together with spare parts in his spare time, and with a largely wooden structure, it is no longer in playable condition. The keyboard has warped over the past 70+ years. Quite frankly, an electrical hazard at this point. Some detective work and reverse engineering had been done at a lab in Calgary, Alberta, before returning it to the museum, although there seem to be a few mysteries remaining, that we haven't quite figured out yet. The team received permission from the conservationist to take it out of the glass display case the other day and poke around inside (with rubber gloves, of course). There is a rack-and-pinion system that the player could operate with a foot-treadle to actuate a spring reverb system. One of the team members is the developer of the Haken Audio Eagenmatrix, used as the heart of the recent Osmose Expressive E synth. He told me that, as near as they can figure out, LeCaine intended for the foot-controlled reverb to be employed like a sustain control to lengthen the decay of notes. Makes sense given that there is no electronic control of decay, only attack. In a sense, the reverb was to be used somewhat like the sustain pedal on a grand piano.
LeCaine left many notes, which are stored in the National LIbrary and Archives, however no complete circuit diagram of the sackbut itself, only a circuit diagram which is a composite of many features of the sackbut but combined with things he changed in subsequent iterations. There are audio recordings of the unit in action, and a number of still photos, but no filmed recordings that would allow us to see how he was making the sounds, using the various controls.
The mission and mandate of the team is to produce a working functional replica of the original, that musicians could book time with and relive the experience of synthesis in the immediate post-war years. We have adhered to the physical layout and structure of the original, and many aspects of its design, but have substituted some more current technology in place of the tube electronics, like the Eaganmarix digital sound engine in place of tube oscillator and filters. The Eaganmatrix is MPE-compatible, such that the various controls can be read by Arduinos, transformed into MIDI code and sent to the Eaganmatrix.
It's been a fascinating journey so far. Looking forward to the finish line. You can find many YOutube videos and documents about it on-line.
Great stuff. Well put together
This is brilliantly put together.
While the Yamaha DX7 does use sinewaves to create some pretty complex sounds, it's a Digital FM Synthesizer that was originally released in 1987, the Synthesizers of the 70's were mostly analog monophonic instruments (there was at least one Digital Synthesizer released in the 70's called the Fairlight CMI), they usually had one or more analog VCOs or Voltage Controlled Oscillators that generated a basic Sawtooth waveform and then used waveshaper circuits to generate Triangle, Sine, and Square waveforms.
1983
Released in '83...produced till '89 (DX7) and Fairlight CMI 1979-1989
Yes the DX7 in 1983, the DX7llD and FD in 1986
Well done Ben and thanks. As others have said, there may have been one or two inaccuracies but it's a great overview and one I'll show my kids. I've been into synths since the 80s and now mostly muck around with Softube Modular and various plugin emulations, like the Model 40 and Model 80. Take care and good luck with your studies. Cheers from Sydney - Dave
Great video!
Thank you!
Good job Ben. It’s clear you are inspired! Keep making music and films. ;)
But get your facts straight.
@@muppetpaster he’s a student, cut him some slack. Raise people up, don’t tear them down.
And we have of course the new trend of VST inspired synthesizers like the Waldorf Iridium, the flagship synth with this amazing GUI, easy to understand modulation matrix and limited menu diving. A lot of work went in your short documentary.
I had no idea that these instruments had roots going that far back. We have come very far in synth technology too. I remember seeing on MTV videos where keyboardists would have a rack of 2 synths here and maybe another rack of 3 there. When I saw Genesis in 1992 Tony Banks used 4 synths on stage and they were big ones - Emulator II+, Yamaha DX-9, two other types. By the time I saw A Flock of Seagulls at a casino during the 2010's, Mike Score played ALL the notes, incl. the Arabianesque melody - everything on a small Roland synth unit. Just that and that alone. After the show, he dismounted the thing off its foldable rack, put all that gear in a zip bag and it was ready to go. Radically different than what you would've seen in 1983. BTW, 'Moog' is pronounced 'Mogue' (rhymes with 'vogue'). I saw the movie 'MOOG' online and Robert Moog said so himself. Stevie Wonder and others mispronounced it. Great job, Ben. Hope you got a good grade for this project. 👏
Sympfs? Once you hear it, you can't unhear it!
Well done, Ben. Nicely put together but not always entirely accurate. Nevertheless, a very enjoyable video. I hope you get a good grade for it (was it an EPQ project?).
Thank you. This is a great video
Nice coverage, but I wouldn't call it "The" history of synthesizers. For one thing, ARP synths are scarcely discussed at all, and they were key in the development of music that used synthesizers. Tony Banks of Genesis used a Pro Soloist to great effect on Selling England by the Pound and The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway. Joe Zawinul of Weather Report did amazing work with two 2600s. George Duke had an Odyssey working with Frank Zappa.
And Billy Currie of Ultravox made his signature lead sound with an Odyssey - flanger - guitar amp combo.
“I dream of wires” is a much more complete history of synthesizers…. This could be a brief discussion on the matter…
Great work, thanks!
super cool stream on the history of synths great job
Thank you. I found that very interesting.
Good job man. Some slight inaccuracies but hey that comes with the territory. Synths are an incredibly complex instrument/object/topic/history.
Fascinating stuff. First bins, now synths. What’s next?
Also nice theremins
Excellent!! Very well done mate! 😉👍
There is only one hope for humanity - the synthesizer.
Really enjoyable video mate, nice one!
Very nice… Thank you!!!…
Good video. Of course it is still a small slice of synthesizer history. I have more than 10 hardware synths including an OB--X8 that I bought because I respected the people that built it. These days I use PluginGuru Unifiy to manage the huge number of VST synths in my computer.
I recall memories of playing on a Buchla synth many years back at UCSD with Ampex tape recorders.
Yes, I have a real Roland VP-330. I like string machines.. My only other old Roland is a JP-8000 and RS-505
Yeah, love my JP8080. Still, that's digital v analog like my Juno 60 and there's a difference.
Where is Doctor leCaine in 1948. Canada. The first prototype synth with voltage control? The Electronic Sakbut?
Yes, Hugh LeCaine contributed far more than is generally recognized, and is still criminally uncredited, as he was during his lifetime.
No doubt, that was the first synth created apparently. How he missed it I have no idea...
One very famous use of the Theremin was in the opening theme of the 1951 Sci Fi classic, "The Day the Earth Stood Still."
Nice start!
Ppl in here expecting feature length documentary going in depth about every corner of synth history in a 13min video 🤡
The first synth that would be recognizable as a modern synth would be the sackbut, invented in Ottawa Ontario. Moog came a decade later. Hugh Le Caine was a researcher for the NRC, was not at all interested in marketing, so the sackbut sits in the NRC museum, shame really.
No mention of the Jenny Ondioline or Jean-Jaques Perry / Gershon Kingsley (Gershon wrote Popcorn, a hit by Hot Butter, and later by the Crazy Frog).
Very interesting history on synfs and synfesizers (is that how you pronounce them?)
Anthony Marinelli played the original Thriller bass line on this 2600 and not on his Model D. He is showing in the clip that you can get similar results with the Model D though.
Nice work Ben, apart from some mistakes. And...I keep hearing 'Sympt'... ;-)
Nice evolution of synths. I like the analog stuff as the later digital ones. The classics (DX7,D50,M1) never really impressed me ergonomically nor their presets. Got a KingKorg, Jupiter 50 (best preset synth I ever owned) and a Subsequent 37. This is my trinity, virtual analog, Roland library (Juno, Jupiters 1080 etc) and the analog beast by Bob. Mind that the virtual analog Korg emulates classic filters (Moog,Oberheim,P5,MS20 etc) and can do a 3 osc split (two MiniMoogs at your fingertips). The Moog on sample & hold is mindblowing!
Nice documentation!
No mention of the Ondes Martenot? Or the Clavioline?
Good video but needs to be longer and much more complete
Always nice to see love for the ondes Martenot ❤
Excellent work! As a synthesizer fan, it’s always nice to learn something new, and I didn’t know about anything before 1950 or so. That said, if you ever revisit this, there are two things that I thought were critical, that needed more mention. The first was, I believe that the jump from monophonic to polyphonic synthesis was a major game changer, and it wasn’t really fully mentioned. The ability to play a chord on a synthesizer was a huge shift. Second, I think you missed the boat on sampling. What you really needed to do was take that same sample of your voice, and then play a little arpeggio and a chord with your voice to more fully demonstrate the concept.
"we would need to leap a whole decade forward" and moves 140 years in time.
This is AMAZING! congratulations Ben on creating this great little documentary. I see you wrote the back ground music too! 👏👏👏
Note: The Theremin is not actually a synthesizer, it is an electronic musical instrument you play without even touching it, the reason why I say that the Theremin is not a synthesizer is because it doesn't "Synthesize" sound, the word Synthesizer comes from the word Synthesis which means "The combining of parts into a connected whole" which succinctly describes what a true Synthesizer does, it combines parts of a sound into a connected whole sound, a Theremin consists of three radio-frequency oscillators one is set to a fixed frequency and is called a reference oscillator, the other two Radio-frequency oscillators are variable in frequency and are connected to an antenna, one of the variable oscillators is mixed with the signal from the reference oscillator, the difference in frequency between the two produces a Sinewave at an audio frequency, the pitch of the audio frequency can be controlled by simply moving your hand closer to or further away from the antenna the oscillator is connected to, so a Theremin produces a musical sound in a completely different way to how a true Synthesizer does.
Both use oscillators, the theremin is a unique controller for electronic music. Filters in subtractive synthesis remove harmonics by letting the low partials to pass (low pass filter) or the high partials to pass in the high pass filter.
A lot of people recognize the Electronic Sackbut as the first synthesizer created in 1945-48.
I really enjoyed this. A nice general overview companion to Alex Ball’s deep dives into synth history. Great job.
You forgot the Buchla was also developed around the same time as Moog. Not as popular but still a big influence on Synthesis today.
I met Mr. Buchla in the 80's when I was dating his oldest daughter. It was a brief encounter in his home. He said a couple of words and then left the room. He was quite mysterious.
@@franticj67it may have been the LSD 😂 Or - if like my own daughter… No way in hell she will tolerate me talking to her date, or lingering past “hello”.
Interesting attempt, lots of missing links though.
Elisha Grey's musical telegraph deserved a mention, Duddell's singing arc, and there were several different telhamonium's.
The Ondes Martenot, Trautonium, and more.
brilliant video
Great Video Ben. I think the instrument used by the beach boys was a Tannerin not a Theremin though they do sound very similar. anyhow nice video thankyou.
I see you have a Behringer Pro 1 in the background. That's the spirit. 😆
Well done! I enjoyed watching this. Definitely will help a lot of folks understand what synths are about.
My 1964 high school senior physics project was a theremin I built from a box of electronic parts and instructions I bought from none other than Robert Moog. (I still have an autographed letter he wrote me). He published a newsletter called "Moog Music" pun intended, which probably led to the usual mispronunciation of his surname.
Moog is pronounce with a "long" O, as in boat, float, wrote, etc.
I've been fighting for many years about this. I saw a documentary that asked the man himself how Moog should be pronounced, but he admitted that it had been Anglicised to from "mogue" to moog.
The same thing happened to Nike from the US. If in the UK, you pronounce it "Naykee", you're in the minority. Most brits call it "Nayk"
I've come to accept there are different ways of pronouncing things and not worth worrying about it. Different strokes...
That was one LOOOONG decade.
Great video and good effort. However, you did miss out a very important piece of the jigsaw, and that is Raymond Scott and his Electronium, along with many other technological innovations and musical achievements, spanning decades. He's the man who inspired the likes of Kraftwerk, Floyd, Eno and Robert Moog. An incredible human mind and musician.
Well-put together, good length. My suggestions: Tell the camera your face is more important than your synth, and maybe don't cut some of the examples so early. YT's sound detection should only happen on longer song parts.
Just binge watched the rest of your content after it seemingly showed up in my feed - I assume via algorithm fitting my synth niche. Interesting content…
If you have not come across the documentary “I dream of wires” I recommend it. And you seem to have an interest in film and music? One of your videos examines leitmotifs- I have a topic for you… “psychological programing in film scores” (maybe there’s a word for this science I’m unaware of?) As there are seemingly set patterns and use of various instruments to not just convey emotion - but to induce it. Often successful in inducing emotions where the film itself otherwise fails…. There is some black magic to be deciphered. As there are certain instrumental elements that our societies are psychologically programmed to respond to - not just in one film, but carrying over from film to film, over the course of decades (*a period of ten years).
Leaping a decade forward from 1759 doesn't land you in 1897.
45 years of prophet 5 synthesizer and yamaha dx7 40th anniversary
1994 Seer Systems delivered the first pro-quality CPU-based software synthesizer to Intel-on a 486. 1995, Microsoft took it from them and put it in their system. In 1996 CTL used it to make the AWE32 into AWE64. 1997 Reality 1.0 software synth scored higher than any previous hardware in Electronic Musician. 2017 Feb, EM gives Seer Systems its first Editors’ Choice Legacy Award "for Game-Changing Influence on Synthesis."
"MOWAHGG" not "MOOOOOG" - FFS!!! This is why you only have 253 subs! Otherwise, a nice little video. But you had to be there at the time to really appreciate the advances in technology from the Theremin through to EVERYONE IN THE WORLD using a DX-7 and the awesome Jupiter 8. I loved those times, I've played rock/metal guitar since 1988 BUT I still have a master MIDI keyboard, Cubase and the plethora of VST synths that I have collected over the years, literally only to make the noises I hold dear to my heart on hearing the likes of Jarre, Vangeliis and Tangerine Dream as a kid.
Good job BB.
really excellent video my guy, i was totally unaware of the very early synth stuff in particular, great job (by the way, its a common mistake, but Moog rhymes with rogue)
Does anyone perhaps know a synth into which I can directly enter mathematical formulas? Reaktor offers something like that but the interface is very uncomfortable. Does anyone know an alternative?
Good effort.
One note. Moog is pronounced wrongly in this video.
It rhymes with vogue and rogue.
I learned this from his family. They are trying to get this right in the world. This is because the name is from Dutch & German origin. After all, it's simply how they are called.
Wicked! So educational. Big ups to to the man like joel Braderz for spreading the knowledgez. 1 love Jah bless, errr me now 😎🇯🇲🇯🇲🔥
Please don't take this video as educational because it is full of errors.
Very Interesting
Where is Ondes Martinot, ondioline?, Trautonium per se is NOT a syntheziser: It is closer to a Hammond organ so it produces a sinewave using a synchronous motor and some gears for harmonics.. but no additive synthesis. I also expected to see the Voder and Vocoder which are real synthesizers extracting harmonics contents using a nth grade comb filter, and the Mellotron which is the earliest sampler... seems this video needs significant grooming and lots of research to show the real timeline.
*Martenot 😘
You are killing me. MOGUE MOW•G come on
Great video and thoroughly enjoyed every last second.... apart from the tiny tiny tiny detail that a decade is 10 years and not 138 years.
I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I wish technology could have been frozen in the late 70's. The innovation from the late 70's and into the 80's far outpaced the artist's creativity to use such technology. New technology would come out before the artists could even scratch the surface on the usage of the existing technology. I offer as evidence the fact that many popular songs contained factory preset patches. I talked to the guy at Emu that created the "swashbuckler" sound used in Robert Palmer's "Simply Irresistible". This sound/patch was supposed to be an EXAMPLE of what the machine was capable of, a demonstration. Instead, a song was created around it. There were a few exceptions like Howard Jones and Kate Bush, but most artists took the instrument out of the box, plugged it in, and went straight into the studio. They didn't take the time to develop custom sounds, organically from the ground up. When the Samplers took off they would digitize other songs and inject them into their music. Augh!! The intent of the engineers was that an artist could digitize an organic sound, like a stream of water, or wildlife, process it, and incorporate it into music. Kind of like the way painters would take colors from nature and use them in paintings. Sorry for the rant, but it is frustrating to see such technology not being realized to its full potential.
The first notes of "Beat it" are dirctly stolen from the demo of the Fairlight.
I shook theremins hand at mills college in Oakland,it was soncool
I would have liked to have heard about the clavioline.
Theremin is NOT used in good vibrations. It was the Tannerin by Paul Tanner.
No mention of ARP??
sunvox is the shizzle... also vcvrack..
Dynamite the lot of 'em.
Leyden jar, not Leydan jar. Leyden is a city in The Netherlands, where this invention was made.
1759?? The first ROMpler?? Damn they probably thought it was a dragon or something back then.
Good video but you missed out a lot of manufacturers Like Roland and Yamaha to mention just two .
I saw a CS80 and DX7 in there..?
@@decimal1815 I missed that .Whoops!!!
@4:10 Anyone and everyone knows MOOG rhymes with vogue. It's not an "oo" sound like in "boot" or "suit".
The filter doesn't lower the pitch!
When synths invaded the pop music market in the 80's everyone thought that musicians were going to lose their jobs. The same thing will happen with this artificial intelligence.

Just kinda blew by the entire virtual analog innovations of the 1990's there. The Nord Lead, JP-8000, and CS1x are on line 1. And the original CPU-based modeling like ReBirth338.
Sure miss the ARP Odissey... And more.
The name Moog, rhymes with the word "Vogue", NOT the sound a cow makes.!!!
Which end of the cow are you talking about? Do you have any udder jokes? (Sounds like a load of bull to me...)
Great video, but a bit disappointed not enough reference to Pink Floyd use of synths, especially off the Dark Side Of the Moon.
Cool
1759 to 1897 is bit more than a decade....
Bill P.
MOH-OOGH
Buchla crying rn 😢